Defining movements rhetorically: Casting the widest net

Abstract

The rhetorical study of movements has several attractions and the number of studies has increased significantly in recent years as has the number of articles theorizing about the rhetorical definition of movements. These theoretical explanations have not been followed in practice by critics and exhibit four problems that limit their usefulness. They assume that movements are linear phenomena, they over‐emphasize cause and effect analysis, they stress intentional analysis unnecessarily, and they prescribe excessively rigid definitions of the phenomena they study. The solution is to let the critic define a movement by the study done and make it acceptable by effectively arguing its usefulness and carefulness. This will open the study of movements to a variety of methodologies and make our theory more consistent with our practice.